Enhancing implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Tool Using a Provider Handoff Task Force at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Communication failures are among the most common causes of harmful medical errors. At one Comprehensive Cancer Center, patient handoffs varied among services. The authors describe the implementation and results of an Organization-wide project to improve handoffs and implement an evidence-based handoff tool across all inpatient services. METHODS: The research team created a task force composed of members from 22 hospital services-advanced practice providers (APPs), trainees, some faculty members, electronic health record (EHR) staff, education and training specialists, and nocturnal providers. Over two years, the task force expanded to include consulting services and Anesthesiology. Factors contributing to ineffective handoffs were identified and organized into categories. The EHR I-PASS tool was used to standardize handoff documentation. Training was provided to staff on its use, and compliance was monitored using a customized dashboard. I-PASS champions in each service were responsible for the rollout of I-PASS in their respective services. The data were reported quarterly to the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) governing committee. Provider handoff perception was assessed through the biennial Institution-wide safety culture survey. RESULTS: All fellows, residents, APPs, and physician assistants were trained in the use of I-PASS, either online or in person. Adherence to the I-PASS written tool improved from 41.6% in 2019 to 70.5% in 2022 (p < 0.05), with improvements seen in most services. The frequency of updating I-PASS elements and the action list in the handoff tool also increased over time. The handoff favorability score on the safety culture survey improved from 38% in 2018 to 59% in 2022. CONCLUSION: The implementation approach developed by the Provider Handoff Task Force led to increased use of the I-PASS EHR tool and improved safety culture survey handoff favorability.

Improving handoff with the implementation of I-PASS at a tertiary oncology hospital.

BACKGROUND: Lack of consistent and standardised handoffs is a leading cause of patient harm. With increased census in our hospital medicine (HM) service, failure to handoff using a standardised method has the potential to cause significant patient harm. We used a quality improvement methodology to standardise an existing and validated handoff tool within our HM team to improve handoff communication among providers and improve patient safety. METHODS: A quality improvement team was charged with studying handoff communication among HM teams and between day and night shift providers at a tertiary oncology hospital. Multiple plan-do-study-act cycles were conducted, and process flow maps, root cause analysis and an affinity diagram were developed based on feedback from the HM team. The quality improvement team developed a plan to implement I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency plan, and Synthesis by receiver) as the standardised handoff tool to be used among the providers in HM at the end of shift and for handoff to the nocturnal covering service. Rates of I-PASS use were collected before and after several educational interventions to encourage use of I-PASS and were displayed in a control chart. After the I-PASS interventions, HM providers were surveyed twice to evaluate the secondary outcomes: the tool's impact on workflow, perceptions of patient safety, ease of use and satisfaction with I-PASS. Survey results were compared using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The HM team's rate of use of I-PASS handoffs increased from 23% to 72%, an improvement of 68%. By the end of the quality improvement project, I-PASS use had increased to 90%. No significant differences were detected in the reported duration of handoffs after I-PASS implementation (on average <5 min per patient, p=0.205). Provider perceptions of handoff quality, efficiency, communication errors and the I-PASS tool's effectiveness were satisfactory. CONCLUSION: We used a quality improvement methodology to encourage the HM team's adoption of a validated handoff tool. Adherence to the standardised handoff tool significantly improved workflows and facilitated communication between the day and night shift teams.

Transfusion use and effect on progression-free, overall survival, and quality of life in upfront treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: evaluation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment EORTC-55971 Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The impact of blood transfusion on ovarian cancer survival is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether peri-operative blood transfusion negatively impacted progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: We performed an ancillary analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) 55971 phase III trial, in which patients were randomized to primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients included in the per-protocol analysis were categorized by receipt of a transfusion. RESULTS: 612 of 632 (97%) of patients had adequate data for analysis. Of those, 323 (53%) received a transfusion. The transfusion cohort was more likely to have had better Word Health Organization (WHO) performance status, serous histology, undergone primary debulking surgery, and received more aggressive surgery, with higher rates of no gross residual disease. Median overall survival was 34.0 vs 35.2 months in the no transfusion and transfusion cohorts (p=0.97). The adjusted HR for death was 1.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.48) in favor of the transfusion cohort. Median progression-free survival was 13.6 vs 12.6 months in the no transfusion and transfusion cohorts (p=0.96). The adjusted HR for progression was 1.14 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.43). There were no significant differences in global quality of life, fatigue, dyspnea, or physical functioning between the two cohorts at baseline or at any of the four assessment times. Grade 3 and 4 surgical site infections were more common in the transfusion cohort. CONCLUSION: Transfusion did not negatively impact progression-free survival or overall survival; however, it was associated with increased peri-operative morbidity without improvements in quality of life.

A Not So Perfect Score: Factors Associated with the Rate of Straight Line Scoring in Oncology Training Programs.

Straight line scoring (SLS), defined as trainee assessments with the same score for all evaluation items, is statistically improbable and potentially indicates inaccurate assessment. Factors contributing to higher SLS rates are unknown, and knowledge of SLS prevalence within oncologic training is lacking. SLS frequency was measured for evaluations from all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited programs at a single cancer care institution between 2014 and 2018. SLS prevalence was estimated using hierarchical linear models (HLM) that considered characteristics of evaluator, trainee, and evaluation potentially related to SLS. Results were compared with national SLS rates. Six thousand one hundred sixty evaluations were included from 476 evaluators. Overall prevalence of SLS was 12.1% (95% CI 4.5-28.8). Residents (vs fellows) were less likely to have SLS evaluations (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8), though for all trainees increasing training year corresponded with increasing SLS frequency (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7). SLS was more common in procedural specialties compared with medical specialties (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.8). Formative evaluations had lower SLS rates (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9) than summative evaluations, while milestone-based evaluations had higher rates than those that were not milestone-based (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.2). Features of evaluators, such as subspecialty within oncology, and of trainees, such as seniority or trainee type, were related to SLS. Summative intent and milestone-based evaluations were more likely to be straight line scored. Specific evaluation scenarios at higher risk of SLS should be further examined.

Dasatinib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in women with advanced-stage or recurrent endometrial cancer: A pilot clinical and translational study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of dasatinib therapy on EphA2 signaling in cancers of women with measurable (biopsy amenable) advanced-stage, chemo-naïve primary or recurrent endometrial cancer. Preliminary efficacy was also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a pilot study of single-agent dasatinib lead-in, followed by triplet dasatinib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin. We measured the downstream effectors of EphA2 signaling in pre- and post-dasatinib treatment biopsy tissue samples; we also determined the severity of adverse events and patients' progression-free survival and overall survival durations. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were recruited and given dasatinib (150 mg orally daily for 14 days), followed by paclitaxel, carboplatin and dasatinib (daily) for six cycles (21-day cycles). Seventeen patients were evaluable for toxicity and 11 patients for response. A reverse phase protein array and proximity ligation assay revealed that CRAF/BRAF dimerization, caveolin-1 level, and Notch pathway signaling were predictive of response and resistance to dasatinib. Overall, the objective response rate was 45% (95% CI: 17%-77%), with median progression-free survival duration of 10.5 months and median overall survival duration of 30.4 months. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%), thrombocytopenia (53%), anemia (53%), and fatigue (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Caveolin-1 expression, in combination with CRAF/BRAF heterodimerization, is associated with resistance to EphA2 targeting by dasatinib. The triplet combination showed interesting clinical activity in endometrial cancer with acceptable toxicity. Pretreatment with dasatinib may accentuate combination therapy toxicity.

An Integrated Approach to Selecting a Prepared Medical Decision-Maker.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a systematic multidisciplinary process to engage new outpatients with cancer in selecting and preparing a medical decision-maker. MEASURES: Templated advance care planning notes and medical power of attorney documents were used in the electronic health record by the third office visit. INTERVENTION: Patients were coached to meet with social work from a "culture of yes," viewed a video about the importance of selecting a prepared medical a decision-maker in English or in Spanish, and referenced cards containing simple explanations of advance directives when responding to advance directive questions. OUTCOMES: A total of 351 patients were evaluated. By visit 3, there was no increase in documented social work advance care planning notes in intervention or scanned medical power of attorney documents in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: This systematic multidisciplinary approach did not engage new outpatients with cancer in preparing a medical decision-maker. More active physician involvement and varied ways of engagement are needed.

Pathologic distribution at the time of interval tumor reductive surgery informs personalized surgery for high-grade ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical approach for interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been extrapolated from primary tumor reductive surgery for high-grade ovarian cancer. The study objective was to compare pathologic distribution of malignancy at interval debulking surgery versus primary tumor reductive surgery. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of high-grade serous or mixed, non-mucinous, epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary tumor reductive surgery and had at least 6 months of follow-up were identified through tumor registry at a single institution from January 1995 to April 2016. Pathologic involvement of organs was categorized as macroscopic, microscopic, or no tumor. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Of 918 patients identified, 366 (39.9%) patients underwent interval debulking surgery and 552 (60.1%) patients underwent primary tumor reductive surgery. Median age was 62.3 years (range 25.3-92.5). The majority of patients in the interval debulking surgery group were unstaged (261, 71.5%). In the patients who had a primary tumor reductive surgery, 406 (74.6%) had stage III disease. In both groups, the majority of patients had serous histology: 325 (90%) and 435 (78.8%) in the interval debulking and primary tumor reductive surgery groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between disease distribution on the uterus between the groups; 31.4% of the patients undergoing interval debulking surgery had no evidence of uterine disease compared with 22.1% of primary tumor reductive surgery specimens (p<0.001). In the adnexa, there was macroscopic disease present in 253 (69.2%) and 482 (87.4%) of cases in the interval vs primary surgery groups, respectively (p<0.001). Within the omentum, no tumor was present in the omentum in 52 (14.2%) in the interval surgery group versus 91 (16.5%) in the primary surgery group (p<0.001). In the interval surgery group, there was no tumor involving the small and large bowel in 49 (13.4%) and 28 (7.7%) pathologic specimens, respectively. This was statistically significantly different from the small and large bowel in the primary surgery group, of which there was no tumor in 20 (3.6%, p<0.001) and 16 (2.9%, p<0.001) of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing interval debulking surgery, there was less macroscopic involvement of tumor in the uterus, adnexa and bowel compared with patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery.

Prospective phase II trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine device: nonsurgical approach for complex atypical hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of complex atypical hyperplasia and early-stage endometrioid endometrial cancer is increasing, in part owing to the epidemic of obesity, which is a risk factor tightly linked to the development of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. The standard upfront treatment for complex atypical hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer is hysterectomy. However, nonsurgical treatment of early-stage endometrial neoplasia may be necessary owing to medical comorbidities precluding surgery or desired future fertility. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device to treat complex atypical hyperplasia and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. STUDY DESIGN: A single-institution, single-arm, phase II study of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (52 mg levonorgestrel, Mirena) was conducted in patients with complex atypical hyperplasia or grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was pathologic response rate at 12 months, including complete or partial response. Quality of life and toxicity were assessed. Molecular analyses for proliferation markers, hormone-regulated genes, and wingless-related integration site pathway activation were performed at baseline and 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were treated (21 endometrial cancer, 36 complex atypical hyperplasia). The median age was 48.0 years, and the median body mass index was 45.5 kg/m2. Of the 47 evaluable patients, 12-month response rate was 83% (90% credible interval, 72.7-90.3)-37 were complete responders (8 endometrial cancer; 29 complex atypical hyperplasia), 2 were partial responders (2 endometrial cancer), 3 had stable disease (2 endometrial cancer; 1 complex atypical hyperplasia), and 5 had progressive disease (3 endometrial cancer; 2 complex atypical hyperplasia). After stratification for histology, the response rate was 90.6% for complex atypical hyperplasia and 66.7% for grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer. Notably, 4 patients (9.5%) experienced relapse after the initial response. Adverse events were mild, primarily irregular bleeding and cramping. Quality of life was not negatively affected. At 3 months, exogenous progesterone effect was present in 96.9% of responders (31 of 32) vs 25% of nonresponders (2 of 8) (P=.001). Nonresponders had higher baseline proliferation (Ki67) and lower dickkopf homolog 3 gene expression than responders (P=.023 and P=.030). Nonresponders had significantly different changes in secreted frizzled-related protein 1, frizzled class receptor 8, and retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2 compared with responders. CONCLUSION: The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has a substantial activity in complex atypical hyperplasia and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer, with a modest proportion demonstrating upfront progesterone resistance. Potential biomarkers were identified that may correlate with resistance to therapy; further exploration is warranted.

Phase Ib/II study of weekly topotecan and daily gefitinib in patients with platinum resistant ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

INTRODUCTION: 50-70% of epithelial ovarian cancers overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor, and its expression has been correlated with poor prognosis. We conducted a phase Ib/II trial to examine the efficacy, safety, and toxicity of gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with topotecan in women with recurrent ovarian cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor positivity. METHODS: Patients with measurable recurrent or persistent cancer after treatment with a platinum containing regimen with positive epidermal growth factor receptor expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry, were eligible for the study. Initial treatment was 250 mg/day gefitinib (oral) and 2.0 mg/m2 topotecan (intravenous) on days 1, 8, and 15, on a 28 day cycle. Dose escalations were planned for topotecan (dose levels 1-3: 2, 3, and 4 mg/m2) until the maximum tolerated dose was reached. RESULTS: 19 patients received a total of 61 cycles. Median age was 59.8 years (range 42-76 years). Histologic types in treated patients included 74% serous (n=14), 11% mixed (n=2), 11% transitional (n=2), and 5% clear cell (n=1). For phase Ib, three patients were treated at dose level 1, three at dose level 2, and three at dose level 3 for topotecan. The maximum tolerated dose was 4.0 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15) for topotecan and 250 mg (daily) for gefitinib. Therefore, dose level 3 was used for phase II. Among the 19 patients, 63.2% (n=12) had progressive disease, 15.8% (n=3) had stable disease, 10.5% (n=2) had a partial response, and 10.5% (n=2) were not evaluable. The most serious adverse events of any grade attributed to the therapy were anemia (89.4%), neutropenia (68.4%), abdominal pain (84%), constipation (78.9%), and diarrhea (78.9%). CONCLUSION: Although the drug combination was relatively well tolerated, this prospective phase Ib/II clinical trial did not show sufficient clinical activity of topotecan combined with gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor positive recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancers.

Long-term survival among 5-year survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although there are a growing number of survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer, to the authors' knowledge the long-term overall survival (OS) patterns for AYA cancer survivors are underreported. The objective of the current study was to assess the long-term survival of AYA cancer survivors and identify factors associated with diminished long-term survival. METHODS: The authors used The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's tumor registry to identify 5-year survivors of cancer diagnosed as AYAs (ages 15-39 years) between the years 1970 and 2005, and who were alive 5 years after diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate OS rates over time, and Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to evaluate the association of covariates with OS. RESULTS: The authors identified 16,728 individuals who were 5-year survivors of cancer and were diagnosed as AYAs with a median follow-up of 20.0 years. The 10-year, 20-year, and 25-year OS rates were 86% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 85%-86%), 74% (95% CI, 73%-75%), and 68% (95% CI, 67%-68%), respectively, all of which were lower than the age-adjusted estimated survival rates of the general population. Long-term OS improved for AYAs diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 compared with those diagnosed in the prior decades (P < .001). Older age at the time of diagnosis, receipt of radiation, and diagnoses including central nervous system tumors and breast cancer each were associated with diminished long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: AYA cancer survivors have inferior long-term survival compared with the general population. Studies investigating the prevalence and types of late treatment effects and causes of death among AYA survivors are needed to more accurately identify AYAs who are at highest risk of early or late mortality.

Systematic Approach to Selecting and Preparing a Medical Power of Attorney in the Gynecologic Oncology Center.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) supports national priorities of patient engagement, person-centered care, and safety. A systematic approach is uncommon in most care settings. Our institution offers all patients with cancer new to the institution an opportunity to select and prepare a medical decision maker (MDM) after social work counseling. The goals of this study were to determine the success of a systematic institutional process for selecting a prepared MDM. The primary objectives were that (1) 70% or more of new patients would have one or more documented social work ACP discussions by the third office visit within 4 months, and (2) there would be a two-fold increase in scanned medical power of attorney (MPOA) documents available in the electronic health record (EHR). The secondary objectives were (1) improved surrogate preparedness for medical decision making, and (2) to determine whether patients with metastatic disease demonstrated greater readiness for selection of an MDM than those with localized disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive gynecology oncology outpatients. RESULTS: Of 133 patients, 93 (70%) had metastatic disease. The median number of visits was two (one to three). Forty-seven patients (39.3%) met with social work by visit 3. Review of ACP notes suggested that most patients were in the early stages of selecting a prepared MDM. At visit 1, 39 (29.3%) reported having an advance directive document; 14 (10.5%) had an MPOA in the EHR. There was no increase by visit 3. Fewer patients with metastatic disease than those with localized cancer (32.3% v 67.5%; P = .001) had three visits; no other parameter, including presence of MPOA documents in the EHR, achieved statistical significance between groups. CONCLUSION: Current processes fail to engage patients in selecting and preparing an MDM.

Choosing Wisely: Decreasing the incidence of perioperative blood transfusions in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and economic impact of a transfusion reduction initiative for patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective healthcare improvement study to align transfusion practices with the American Society of Hematology's Choosing Wisely® campaign. Baseline transfusion rates were determined retrospectively for all major gynecologic surgical cases from 3/1/14 to 6/30/14. Data for the post-intervention period from 5/15/15 to 5/16/16 were captured prospectively. The primary outcome was transfusion within 72 h of surgery. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity, mortality, number of units ordered per transfusion episode and cost. RESULTS: We identified 1281 surgical cases, 334 in the baseline and 947 in the post-implementation cohort. The baseline cohort was noted to have a higher median estimated blood loss (100 v. 75 mL, P < 0.01). Otherwise, there were no differences in clinical or perioperative characteristics between the two cohorts. The perioperative transfusion rate decreased from 24% to 11% (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45; P < 0.001). The perioperative laparotomy transfusion rate decreased from 48% to 23% (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12, 0.37; P < 0.001). The number of occurrences in which more than one unit of blood was ordered at a time decreased from 65% to 23%, P < 0.001. The incidence of surgical site infections declined in the post-intervention group, otherwise there were no differences in 30-day mortality, cardiac, venous thromboembolism or readmission rates between the groups. The projected cost savings was $161,112 over the 12-month intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an educational based transfusion reduction program was associated with substantial reductions in perioperative transfusions and cost without significant changes in morbidity or mortality.

Women's preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed preferences for cancer risk management strategies for Lynch syndrome (LS) in LS-affected women. METHODS: Women with LS aged ≥25 years evaluated 9 cancer risk management strategies using a visual analog scale (VAS) and modified standard gamble (SG). For the VAS, women ranked each strategy ranging from 0 (least preferred) to 100 (most preferred). VAS scores were calculated by dividing the corresponding number by 100. Scores closer to 1.0 reflected more favorable strategies. For the SG, participants were asked to specify their expected threshold of lifetime risk of endometrial or colorectal cancer, ranging from 0 to 100%, at which they would consider undertaking each strategy. Strategies included chemoprevention, cancer screening, and preventive surgery. Cancer worry and perceived cancer risk measures were collected on a subset of participants. RESULTS: Sixty-one women completed preference assessments. By VAS, annual combined screening was the most preferred, followed by annual screenings and chemoprevention with oral contraceptives. By SG, women were the most willing to endorse oral contraceptives and biannual screening strategies at the lowest threshold of lifetime risk followed by annual screening strategies. Surgical interventions were the least preferred strategies using both VAS and SG. Women with a family history of gynecologic or colorectal cancer were less likely to consider prevention or screening options compared to women without a family history. Cancer worry was higher among women with a positive family history of LS cancer. CONCLUSION: Understanding women's preferences may facilitate optimal use and adherence to cancer risk management strategies.

How we use hospice: Hospice enrollment patterns and costs in elderly ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe disparities in patterns of hospice use and end-of-life costs among ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: Using Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare data, ovarian cancer patients deceased 2005-2012 with >12 months of continuous Medicare coverage before death were included. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions were used to evaluate patterns of hospice use. Cost and resource utilization was obtained from Medicare claims and analyzed using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: 2331 patients were assessed: 1788 (77%) white, 359 (15%) Hispanic, 158 (7%) black and 26 (1%) other. 1756 (75%) enrolled in hospice prior to death but only 1580 (68%) died with hospice. 176 (10%) of 1756 patients unenrolled and died without hospice. 346 (20%) unenrolled from hospice multiple times. From 2008 to 2012, patients were less likely to unenroll from hospice prior to death. Black patients were more likely to unenroll from hospice prior to death (OR 2.07 [1.15-3.73]; p = 0.02) compared to white patients. The median amount paid by Medicare during the last six months of life was $38,530 for those in hospice compared to $49,942 if never enrolled in hospice (p < 0.0001) and was higher for black and Hispanic patients compared to white patients. 30% hospice unenrolled patients and 40% multiply enrolled hospice patients received at least one life extending or invasive care procedure following unenrollment from hospice. CONCLUSION: Recently, more patients remain enrolled in hospice, but black patients have a higher risk of unenrollment. Hospice enrollment was associated with lower costs as long as a patient did not unenroll from hospice.

Does adjuvant chemotherapy dose modification have an impact on the outcome of patients diagnosed with advanced stage ovarian cancer? An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between chemotherapy dose modification (dose adjustment or treatment delay), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) and primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC) who receive carboplatin and paclitaxel. METHODS: Women with stages III and IV EOC and PPC treated on the Gynecologic Oncology Group phase III trial, protocol 182, who completed eight cycles of carboplatin with paclitaxel were evaluated in this study. The patients were grouped per dose modification and use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The primary end point was OS; Hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were calculated for patients who completed eight cycles of chemotherapy. Patients without dose modification were the referent group. All statistical analyses were performed using the R programming language and environment. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients were included in this study; 229 (31%) required dose modification, 509 did not. The two groups were well-balanced for demographic and prognostic factors. The adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for disease progression and death among dose-modified patients were: 1.43 (95% CI, 1.19-1.72, P < 0.001) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.54, P = 0.021), respectively. Use of G-CSF was more frequent in dose-modified patients with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.63 (95% CI: 2.51-5.26, P < 0.001) compared to dose-unmodified patients. CONCLUSION: Dose-modified patients were at a higher risk of disease progression and death. The need for chemotherapy dose modification may identify patients at greater risk for adverse outcomes in advanced stage EOC and PPC.

Handoff Tool Enabling Standardized Transitions Between the Emergency Department and the Hospitalist Inpatient Service at a Major Cancer Center.

Communication failures during patient handoff can lead to serious errors. A quality improvement team created a standardized handoff tool/process (DE-PASS: Decisive problem requiring admission, Evaluation time, Patient summary, Acute issues/action list, Situation unfinished/awareness, Signed out to) for admitting patients from the emergency department (ED) to the hospitalist inpatient service of a tertiary cancer center. DE-PASS mirrors the institution's ED workflow, stratifies patients as stable/urgent/emergent, and establishes requirements for verbal and email communications between providers. Comparison of preintervention and postintervention results from the 1-month pilot revealed that within a 24-hour period, DE-PASS reduced the number of intensive care unit transfers by 58% ( P = .393), the number of rapid-response team calls by 39% ( P = .637), and time to inpatient order by 31% ( P = .004). ED physicians' and hospitalists' satisfaction with DE-PASS increased. Reduction in intensive care unit transfers was sustained after the pilot ( P = .029). DE-PASS feasibility was evidenced by 100% uptake. By stratifying patients by risk level, DE-PASS reduced admission-to-evaluation times for unstable patients, potentially improving patient safety.

Gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for long-term surveillance.

BACKGROUND: With ongoing healthcare reform and shrinking numbers of oncologists, appropriate triaging of gynecologic cancer survivor care is crucial. Input from patients is a necessary part of this task. The objective of this study was to assess the preferences of gynecologic cancer survivors for surveillance after the completion of treatment. METHODS: A 38-item questionnaire was developed and launched in conjunction with the Foundation for Women's Cancer (FWC). All women who registered as gynecologic cancer survivors with the FWC were invited to participate. Patients were asked about physician preferences for multiple symptoms and diagnoses, and when they felt comfortable transferring care out of their oncologists' offices. Analyses were performed with chi-square and logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty four patients completed the questionnaire. Sixty six percent had ovarian cancer, and 86% were primarily treated by a gynecologic oncologist. Fifty seven percent of the respondents reported being unwilling to see a physician other than their oncologist for survivorship care at any time. Women age > 60 years were less willing to leave their oncologists for survivorship care at any time compared to younger women (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27], p = 0.03). Ovarian cancer survivors were also more likely to report a desire to stay with their oncologists compared with uterine cancer survivors (p < 0.001). With few exceptions, respondents preferred management of non-oncologic medical problems by their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic cancer survivors prefer that their oncologists remain heavily involved in survivorship care. Reconciling patient needs with physician and financial constraints will be a challenge as the survivor population continues to grow.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients before and after pelvic exenteration.

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a surgical procedure associated with significant morbidity offered to select women with locally advanced or recurrent gynecologic cancers. This ongoing study examines an array of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction with PE. METHODS: Since February 2009, prospectively enrolled participants completed questionnaires evaluating body image (BIS), depression (CESD), social support (DUFSS), symptoms (MDASI), sexual function (SAQ), functional status (SF-12), quality of life (The Stoma-QOL), satisfaction with decision (SWD) and an investigator-designed survey at baseline, 6, and 12months after PE. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: Fifty-four women enrolled. Median age was 56years (31, 85). Median BMI was 30.7kg/m2 (16.8, 54.4). The majority of patients (78%) were white. Cancer diagnoses included 41% cervix, 22% uterus, 19% vagina, 17% vulva and 2% ovary. Most surgeries were total PEs (76%). Patients were satisfied with their decision to undergo PE at 6 and 12months. One year after exenteration, 79% of women stated they would have a PE again. Sexual pleasure decreased from baseline to 12months after PE (p=0.02), while sexual discomfort remained unchanged (p=0.42). Body image worsened over time (p=0.003). Physical functioning (SF-12) declined (p=0.001), while mental functioning remained stable (p=0.46). There were no significant changes in stoma-related QOL, social support, or depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decrease in physical functioning, persistent low body image and sexual pleasure, most women were satisfied with their decision and would undergo pelvic exenteration again. This study identifies survivorship issues that should be addressed after PE.

Treatment of Low-Risk Endometrial Cancer and Complex Atypical Hyperplasia With the Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS: This retrospective case series included all patients treated with the LNG-IUD for complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer from January 2003 to June 2013. Response rates were calculated and the association of response with clinicopathologic factors, including age, body mass index, and uterine size, was determined. RESULTS: Forty-six patients diagnosed with complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer were treated with the LNG-IUD. Of 32 evaluable patients at the 6-month time point, 15 had complex atypical hyperplasia (47%), nine had G1 endometrial cancer (28%), and eight had grade 2 endometrial cancer (25%). Overall response rate was 75% (95% CI 57-89) at 6 months; 80% (95% CI 52-96) in complex atypical hyperplasia, 67% (95% CI 30-93) in grade 1 endometrial cancer, and 75% (CI 35-97) in grade 2 endometrial cancer. Of the clinicopathologic features evaluated, there was a trend toward the association of lack of exogenous progesterone effect in the pathology specimen with nonresponse to the IUD (P=.05). Median uterine diameter was 1.3 cm larger in women who did not respond to the IUD (P=.04). CONCLUSION: Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD therapy for the conservative treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer resulted in return to normal histology in a majority of patients.